quillette | The link between sex and dominance has a deep evolutionary history.
The perennial battles between males over reproductive access to females
fill the annals of natural history, and are explained by evolutionary
biologist Robert Trivers’ concept of parental investment.4
According to this concept, the sex that invests most in reproduction
(usually females) is more vigorously pursued by the sex that invests
least (usually males), leading to more frequent dominance contests among
the least investing sex.
Females exhibit a preference for dominant males who can bequeath
impeccable genetic pedigrees and material resources to future offspring.
As such, we should expect males to increase their sexual response
following a victory over a rival in anticipation of increased sexual
opportunities. Indeed, as suggested by my graduate research with David
Bjorklund, men who are single (and, hence, men for whom the stakes of
competition over women are highest) exhibit more sexual interest in
women following a victory than a defeat.5
Physiologically, dominance and sex are linked by the male hormone
testosterone, as suggested by studies showing higher testosterone levels
in men who win than in men who lose, whether in sports6 or politics.7
This function of testosterone is supported by research showing that
presidential and congressional elections in the US were followed by
increases in pornography consumption in states whose citizens
overwhelmingly voted for winning candidates.8 9All
of this suggests that social dominance is a common antecedent to sexual
behavior. But the influence also goes in the other direction, as is
indicated by Imhoff and colleagues’ finding that exposure to sexual
material leads to an increase in aggression among sexually narcissistic
men.10
